Barach Obama Apparently Doesn’t Know the Difference Between a Fetus and an Infant

Barach Obama has been accused of opposing the Infant Born Alive Protection Act, which requires hospitals and doctors to treat the survivors of attempted abortion. He denies this despite having refused repeatedly to vote for the Illinois versions.

This 2001 transcript, pp.86-87, is telling. Expressing a hyper-legalism to avoid grappling with the issue, Obama argued against the legislation, stating:

The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment for a previable child or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we place the burden on the doctor, that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention–as is necessary to try to keep the child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.

“A previable child or fetus, however way you want to describe it“? Once the child is delivered, he or she is an infant, not a fetus. And the requirement that a living baby be treated once delivered, has nothing to do with abortion or the woman’s right to the same. So, it seems to me that the only way to read Obama’s statement is that he doesn’t believe that abortion survivors should have to be treated as fully human beings.

And how’s this for leadership? After making his statement, after asserting that the bill is unconstitutional, Obama said:

I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting Present.

The courage to lead!

HT: Yuval Levin